The document discusses several programs for accelerating patent prosecution:
1) Petition to Make Special based on applicant's age or health.
2) Accelerated Examination which aims for a disposition within 12 months. It requires additional documents and fees.
3) Prioritized Examination under the America Invents Act which also aims for a 12 month disposition and has a $4800 fee.
4) The First Action Interview Pilot Program allows an interview before the first Office Action.
5) The Patent Prosecution Highway allows accelerated examination if claims were found patentable in another office.
The presentation discusses the different techniques for speeding up examination at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Topics covered in this presentation include petitions to make special, accelerated examination, prioritized examination, Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH), and the First Action Interview Pilot Program. In addition, some different filing scenarios using these techniques are discussed.
Topics covered in this month’s Trademark Group Luncheon include balancing of first amendment interests and trademark rights as applied to sports uniforms as well as a licensing debacle between Apple and the owner of the “iPad” trademark in China. The group delved into the copyright realm by discussing the protectability of a hookah base shape when that shape is a useful article that cannot be separated from its utilitarian elements.
What Does it mean?
To understand go through the whole document...
Nothing but this is basically intended to give message about the term "Patent Applications"? What they are? Benefits? Drawback? etc
This slide deck is prepared by Mindy Bickel, a USPTO employee since 1989. Mindy works with innovators, entrepreneurs and local educators in and around New York City, providing them with appropriate information and resources offered by the USPTO and the Department of Commerce. This slide was used for a CoInvent event on Sept. 4th, 2014.
The presentation discusses the different techniques for speeding up examination at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Topics covered in this presentation include petitions to make special, accelerated examination, prioritized examination, Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH), and the First Action Interview Pilot Program. In addition, some different filing scenarios using these techniques are discussed.
Topics covered in this month’s Trademark Group Luncheon include balancing of first amendment interests and trademark rights as applied to sports uniforms as well as a licensing debacle between Apple and the owner of the “iPad” trademark in China. The group delved into the copyright realm by discussing the protectability of a hookah base shape when that shape is a useful article that cannot be separated from its utilitarian elements.
What Does it mean?
To understand go through the whole document...
Nothing but this is basically intended to give message about the term "Patent Applications"? What they are? Benefits? Drawback? etc
This slide deck is prepared by Mindy Bickel, a USPTO employee since 1989. Mindy works with innovators, entrepreneurs and local educators in and around New York City, providing them with appropriate information and resources offered by the USPTO and the Department of Commerce. This slide was used for a CoInvent event on Sept. 4th, 2014.
Knobbe Martens Webinar Series: Strategic Considerations in Controlling the Sp...Jason Rabuy
Attorneys David Schmidt, Ph.D., Heungsoo Choi, and Of Counsel Hironori Kubota presented a detailed webinar focusing on Strategic Considerations in Controlling the Speed of Prosecution at the USPTO.
Knobbe Martens Webinar Series: Strategic Considerations in Controlling the Sp...Jason Rabuy
Partners Mauricio Uribe, David Schmidt and Vlad Teplitskiy presented a webinar focused on strategic considerations in controlling speed of prosecution in USPTO.
The presentation discusses different techniques for using US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) invalidity proceedings to invalidate issued patents. The presentation specifically discusses the new procedures available under the America Invents Act (AIA). Topics include Post-Grant Review (PGR) and Inter Partes Review (IPR) and cover business method review (CBM) programs. Deadlines as well as specific scheduling orders for these programs are discussed as well as how best to use the new programs at the USPTO.
Filing a Patent application is the first step towards protecting an invention. This presentation details in brief on how and where to file a patent application along with the other documentary and statutory requirements.
Topics covered in this month’s Patent Prosecution Group Luncheon include a discussion of the USPTO proposed rules for implementing the America Invents Act (AIA) with respect o the new first-to-file standard for applications, submissions to remove references based on common ownership or origination from inventor, and proposed post-AIA examination guidelines. The group also discussed newly available functionality in Google Patents, including a new “prior art finder” tool for automatically locating prior art references.
Marta Paul spoke on recent developments in US trademark law at the August practice group lunch. Topics included the Supreme Court’s decision in Matal v. Tam on “disparaging” trademarks, as well as how the USPTO is handling similar parts of the trademark statute in the wake of the decision. More news from the USPTO included a new examination guideline on “merely informational matter” and recent cases from the TTAB. Finally, Marta discussed a recent precedential decision from the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit, In re I.AM.SYMBOLIC, LLC, involving likelihood of confusion and the effect of subject matter limitations in the identifications of goods or services used in trademark applications.
Knobbe Martens Webinar Series: Strategic Considerations in Controlling the Sp...Jason Rabuy
Attorneys David Schmidt, Ph.D., Heungsoo Choi, and Of Counsel Hironori Kubota presented a detailed webinar focusing on Strategic Considerations in Controlling the Speed of Prosecution at the USPTO.
Knobbe Martens Webinar Series: Strategic Considerations in Controlling the Sp...Jason Rabuy
Partners Mauricio Uribe, David Schmidt and Vlad Teplitskiy presented a webinar focused on strategic considerations in controlling speed of prosecution in USPTO.
The presentation discusses different techniques for using US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) invalidity proceedings to invalidate issued patents. The presentation specifically discusses the new procedures available under the America Invents Act (AIA). Topics include Post-Grant Review (PGR) and Inter Partes Review (IPR) and cover business method review (CBM) programs. Deadlines as well as specific scheduling orders for these programs are discussed as well as how best to use the new programs at the USPTO.
Filing a Patent application is the first step towards protecting an invention. This presentation details in brief on how and where to file a patent application along with the other documentary and statutory requirements.
Topics covered in this month’s Patent Prosecution Group Luncheon include a discussion of the USPTO proposed rules for implementing the America Invents Act (AIA) with respect o the new first-to-file standard for applications, submissions to remove references based on common ownership or origination from inventor, and proposed post-AIA examination guidelines. The group also discussed newly available functionality in Google Patents, including a new “prior art finder” tool for automatically locating prior art references.
Marta Paul spoke on recent developments in US trademark law at the August practice group lunch. Topics included the Supreme Court’s decision in Matal v. Tam on “disparaging” trademarks, as well as how the USPTO is handling similar parts of the trademark statute in the wake of the decision. More news from the USPTO included a new examination guideline on “merely informational matter” and recent cases from the TTAB. Finally, Marta discussed a recent precedential decision from the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit, In re I.AM.SYMBOLIC, LLC, involving likelihood of confusion and the effect of subject matter limitations in the identifications of goods or services used in trademark applications.
July’s practice group lunch included an overview of recent decisions, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court addressed a number of patent law topics this year, including the standard of review for patent claim construction (Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz), royalties on expired patents (Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises), and defenses to claims of induced infringement (Commil v. Cisco). The initial wave of appeals in post-issuance proceedings provided by the America Invents Act are now being decided by the Federal Circuit. These include cases involving whether the decision to institute is reviewable (In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies) and discussion of the claim construction standards that apply (Microsoft v. Proxyconn). The relationship between administrative challenges and related litigation is also an evolving area (ePlus v. Lawson Software).
More from Woodard, Emhardt, Henry, Reeves & Wagner, LLP (20)
2. • Petition to Make Special
• Accelerated Examination
• Prioritized Examination
• First Action Interview Pilot Program
• Patent Prosecution Highway
3. Petition to Make Special MPEP 708.02
• Applicant is 65 or older
– “Statement by one named inventor that he/she
is 65” or more
– Requires proof of age or statement from
practitioner
• Applicant’s health
– Normal course of prosecution may result in
applicant’s inability to assist prosecution
– Requires proof
• Application advanced out of turn
• No fee required
4. Accelerated Examination MPEP 708.02(a)
• Goal: 12 months to disposition
• Available for
– Utility applications
– Design applications (MPEP 708.02(a)(VIII)(A)
• Not available for
– Plant applications
– Reissue applications
– §371 national stage applications
– Reexamination proceedings
– RCEs (unless the previously granted special status); and
– Petitions to make special based on applicant’s health or
age or under the PPH pilot program
5. Accelerated Examination MPEP 708.02(a)
• Filing petition:
– Fee ($130) (except for environment, energy, anti-terrorism, or
superconductivity inventions)
– Application must be "complete" and "in condition for examination"
e.g., all required fees, oath/declaration of actual inventor, spec,
claims, drawing, title, abstract, priority claims
– File electronically
– Include suggested classification (class and subclass)
– 3 independent claims; 20 total; no multiple dependent claims
– No preliminary amendments
– Statement of agreement:
to have interview w/Examiner to discuss prior art/potential rejections with
intent to resolve all patentability issues at that time
to elect by telephone interview, without traverse, if restriction required
not to argue patentability of any dependent claim separately on appeal
– Patentability search + support document
6. Accelerated Examination MPEP 708.02(a)
• Pre-filing patentability search; describe search methods
• Accelerated Examination Support document
– IDS and references
– Identification of all claim limitations disclosed in each
reference, and where
– Detailed explanation of how each claim is patentable
over the cited references
– Identify support for each claim limitation in the
specification
• Petition dismissed if any items omitted
7. Accelerated Examination MPEP 708.02(a)
• Expedited prosecution
– Goal:12 months to allowance, final OA, RCE, or abandonment
– Failure to meet goal is not petitionable nor appealable
– Examiner begins examination within two weeks
– Examiner will telephone applicant with restriction requirement
– Applicant must elect w/o traverse by telephone
– Special status for continuing apps must be petitioned individually
– Examiner telephones applicant to discuss any rejections
– If interview does not result in allowance, OA is mailed
– One month to reply to non-final OA, or abandonment
– No extensions of time permitted
– USPTO has conference prior to mailing any OA (same as for pre-appeal
brief review)
– Appeal not accelerated but post-appeal prosecution is accelerated
– RCE will delay disposition, but the prosecution remains accelerated
8. Prioritized Examination (AIA) MPEP 708.02(b)
• Goal: 12 months to disposition, 1st OA within 4 months
• Track I of Three Track Initiative
• Current cap of 10,000 requests granted/year (may change upon evaluation of
program)
– 4239 grants as of June 18, 2012
• Available for:
– Utility applications
– Plant applications
– RCEs (including §371 nationalizations) (but only 1st RCE)
– CON, CIP, DIV, bypass CONs
– Regardless of whether parent application had "prioritized" status
– File separate request for each
• Not available for:
– Design applications
– Reissue applications
– §371 nationalizations – newly filed
– Reexam
9. Prioritized Examination (AIA) MPEP 708.02(b)
• Filing:
– Certification and request form PTO/SB/424
– Filed with new application
– Filed concurrent with or subsequent to filing RCE (but before 1st OA)
– PE fee ($4800; $2400 small entity) and processing fee ($130)
– All fees (including filing, search, exam, publication) paid concurrent with
request
– Claim limitation: 4 independent, 30 dependent, no multiple dependent
claims
– No support doc required, however, “applicants should consider one or
more of the following”:
– Acquiring good knowledge of the state of the prior art
– Filing application in condition for examination (same as AE)
– Filing replies completely responsive to OAs
– Being prepared to conduct interviews with examiner
– File electronically
10. Prioritized Examination (AIA) MPEP 708.02(b)
• Expedited prosecution
– Goal: 12 months to allowance, final OA,
Appeal, RCE, or abandonment
– Placed in examiner’s special docket
– Normal time periods for reply
– Extensions of time terminate priority status
– Amendments outside of claim number
limitations terminate priority status
– Priority does not continue through Appeal,
Interference, or after filing RCE
11. First Action Interview Pilot Program
• Opportunity to advance through prosecution by discussing
the case with the Examiner before any rejections
• Makes grant of interview before 1st OA non-discretionary
– Distinguish from MPEP 713.02 re: discretionary
interview
• Examiner supplies search and pre-interview
communication prior to interview
• 2100 requests so far
• Extended through November 16, 2012
– Office currently analyzing feedback to July 9, 2012
request for comments
12. First Action Interview Pilot Program
• Requirements:
– Utility application or §371 nationalization (no
reissues)
– Request must be filed prior to 1st OA
– Claim limitation: 3 independent, 20 total, no
multiple dependent
– Preliminary amendment allowed to fix claims
– Single invention – elect without traverse or
withdraw from program
13. First Action Interview Pilot Program
• File request electronically
• 1 month to fix any errors and comply with requirements (not extendable)
• Application not advanced out of turn
• Examiner conducts prior art search
• Examiner allows claims, schedules interview (minor amendments) OR
provides pre-interview communication
– Includes citations to prior art references
– Includes identification of any rejections and/or objections if at least one claim
is not allowable
– 1 month to respond
• Amendments between communication and 1st OA (if any) entered at
Examiner’s discretion
• Applicant can choose whether to have the interview
– File request to not have interview OA and 1 month to respond
– File reply (pre-interview communication treated as OA), or
– Schedule the interview (w/in 60 days) and file proposed amendments or
remarks
14. First Action Interview Pilot Program
• Interview
– Be prepared to discuss:
– Assist examiner in understanding invention
– Establish the state of the art
– Patentable features of claimed invention
– If agreement, allowance
– If no agreement, OA entered
– 1 month to respond; limited extensions of time
– Applicant can choose to convert proposed amendments
into reply
15. Patent Prosecution Highway
• An application with claims determined to be patentable in an
Office of First Filing (OFF) may be eligible to go through an
accelerated examination in an Office of Second Filing (OSF).
– OSF uses search and examination results of OFF
• Claims determined to be patentable in a PCT also apply (Written
Opinion; Int. Prelim Report on Patentability)
– Test basis: JPO, EPO, KIPO, APO, ROSPATENT, SPTO
– Called PCT-PPH program
• Direct claim of priority not necessary
– ex: a bypass con that claims benefit to a PCT application, which PCT
application claims priority to application A filed with the OFF
– When a claim of application A is considered allowable, the bypass
con is eligible for PPH
16. Patent Prosecution Highway
Requirements:
• Application to be accelerated must have a qualifying
relationship to the OFF/PCT application
• At least one claim in the OFF/PCT application must
be indicated as patentable
• All of the claims in the application must "sufficiently
correspond" to the claims in the OFF/PCT application
– “sufficiently correspond” if scope is same or similar
– Commentators note that this is the difficult part in practice
– Basically, copy the claims in the OFF/PCT application
– Perhaps suggest Examiner Amendment
• Substantive examination for the application cannot
have already started (No OA)
17. Patent Prosecution Highway
• Procedure:
– Submit request to enter PPH by EFS
No petition fee
– Submit copies of all actions from OFF
applications with allowable claims
– Submit IDS and copies of documents it lists
– Submit claims correspondence table
– if PPH request is not granted there is one
chance to fix any problems in the request
– when request granted (usually within 2 months),
examination is accelerated
– examined 2-3 months after PPH request granted
18. Patent Prosecution Highway
The U.S. application must be:
• a Paris Convention application which either validly claims priority to one or more applications
filed in a qualifying OFF, or validly claims priority to a PCT application that contains no
priority claims;
• a national stage application under the PCT, which PCT application validly claims priority
under sec. 365(b) to an application filed in the OFF; validly claims priority to another PCT
application that contains no priority claim; or contains no priority claim;
• a bypass application filed under 35 USC 111(a) that claims benefit under 35 USC 120 to a
PCT application, which PCT application 1. Claims priority under 35 USC 365(b) to an
application filed with the OFF, or 2. Claims priority under 35 USC 365(b) to a PCT
application that contains no priority claims, or 3. contains no priority claims;
• a national stage entry of the corresponding PCT application;
• a national stage entry of another PCT application which claims priority to the corresponding
PCT application;
• a national application that claims domestic/ foreign priority to the corresponding PCT
application;
• a national application which forms the basis for the priority claim in the corresponding PCT
application;
• a continuing application of an OSF application that satisfies one of the conditions above; or
• if the USPTO is the OSF, a U.S. application that claims domestic benefit to a U.S.
provisional application which forms the basis for the priority claim in the corresponding PCT
application.
19. Patent Prosecution Highway
• Benefits:
– Reduced pendency
Examined before other categories of apps (except
special status and accelerated examination)
25% first action allowance
– Greater success
~92% allowance rate
– Reduced costs
Average 1.7 actions per disposal
20. Comparison
PTMS AE PE FAI PPH
Disposition 12 months 12 months
Goal
Disposition 10 months (as of 5.19 months
Actual 2/2009)
(40 months avg)
Time to 1st OA 1.64 months 22 months 6 months
(22 months avg)
1st OA Avg? 43% (as of 4/9/2012) Avg? 35% 25%
allowance rate
Allowance rate 64% (at disposition) 51% (at 92%
(51% avg) disposition)
Additional cost None $130 petition fee + $4800 PE fee + None Cost to prepare claim
cost for search and $130 petition fee correspondence table,
support document office actions,
translations
Cost savings Fewer OAs Fewer OAs – 1.7 (2.5
avg)
Risks/ - Additional Petition Shortened
disadvantages prosecution record separately for periods to
- Shortened periods to RCE reply, limited
reply, no extensions - PE ends at extensions
appeal
Additional Post appeal -Reduced Reduced prosecution
Benefits prosecution and RCE prosecution record
remain accelerated record